This article delves into the connection between judicial review and democratic governance in India. It explores the development and constitutional foundations of review, emphasizing its crucial role as a cornerstone of the Indian democratic structure. By analyzing cases and academic writings, the paper discusses how judicial review impacts the distribution of power among the government's three branches, protects rights, and enhances accountability and adherence to the rule of law.

It also examines perceptions of activism and the validity of judicial rulings. Through evaluating how judicial review influences governance, this paper seeks to illuminate its importance in upholding principles, safeguarding individual freedoms, and ensuring governmental answerability. Ultimately, it provides insights into the direction of review in India and offers suggestions for reinforcing the judiciary's role in promoting a strong and inclusive democratic system.

Introduction
The idea of judicial review can be considered a crucial component of modern governance upon its democratic basis and forms a tool to defend constitutional principles, personal rights, and to ensure governmental responsiveness. In India, where democracy flourishes in a structure of socio-political complexities including a multi-cultural and multi-religious ecosystem, the role of judicial review gets significant importance. Introducing the complex interactions of judicial review and democratic governance in India provides a journey in time, revealing the system's historical genesis, constitutional foundations, and functioning levels, including positive and negative effects.

India's way toward setting a successful mechanism of judicial review started with the independence of the nation in 1947. The Constitution's framers viewed the judiciary as the checking force of the Constitution, gathered with the obligation of interpreting and guarding the defined principles. The Indian Constitution, inspired by democratic ideals, places a judicial structure with a multi-tiered system for judicial review that clearly delineates the role of the judiciary against the government and the legislature.

This incorporated constitution is the foundation of Indian democracy and upholds the rule of law, making the fundamental rights a primary principle. The judicial review function of the Indian judiciary exists in a way that its legal essence not only extends beyond its called-for role but also permeates the core of democracy.

What is the Constitutional Framework of Judicial Review?

The Indian Constitution, adopted on January 26, 1950, acts as the basis for the exercise of judicial review. A living document, the Constitution lays the foundation for a democracy where liberty, equality, and justice are the guiding principles. At its core, the Constitution assigns the judicial branch the responsibility for the interpretation and execution of constitutional provisions. This is called judicial review—it places the Constitution above any act passed by the legislative or executive branches.

• Article 13: Any law violating fundamental rights is declared null and void. This provision empowers the judiciary to strike down laws that infringe constitutional guarantees.
• Articles 32 and 226: These articles empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and correct violations.
• Separation of Powers: The Constitution divides power among the legislative, executive, and judiciary, establishing a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny.

Judicial Review and Democratic Governance

• Protection of Individual Rights: Judicial review serves as a safeguard against state overreach and preserves fundamental rights.
• Constitutional Compliance: The judiciary evaluates the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, reinforcing the rule of law.
• Accountability: Judicial review holds public officials answerable for constitutional violations.
• Democratic Stability: By ensuring that the government operates within constitutional boundaries, judicial review strengthens democratic governance.

Impact on Democratic Governance

• United States:
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review, empowering courts to void unconstitutional laws.
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Ended racial segregation in schools.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
• India:
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Affirmed the basic structure doctrine, protecting core constitutional principles from amendment.

Criticisms and Challenges

1. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:
   • Activism promotes proactive rights protection, while restraint emphasizes limited interference in policymaking.
2. Judicial Legitimacy and Democratic Accountability:
   • Concerns arise since judges are not elected, raising issues of legitimacy in policymaking.
3. Lack of Accountability Mechanisms:
   • Judges often operate without electoral scrutiny, which can erode public trust.
4. Transparency and Public Confidence:
   • Open judicial appointments and transparent rulings are vital to maintain trust in the judiciary.

Conclusion
Judicial review in democratic governance has many layers. On one hand, it is a crucial protection of constitutional principles; on the other, it is a debated topic. This research has shown how judicial review helps maintain constitutional values, protect liberties, and enforce checks and balances.

Despite challenges such as activism, legitimacy, and accountability, judicial review remains integral to democratic governance. A balanced relationship between judiciary and legislature, along with democratic accountability, is vital. The judiciary must remain aligned with social needs while upholding the integrity of institutions.

Enhancing transparency and public trust in the judiciary can restore the solidity of democratic rule and retain the function of judicial control over constitutional order and individual liberty.